Because geoscientific research often occurs via community-instigated bursts
of activity with multi-investigator collaborations variously labelled as
e.g., years (The International Polar Year IPY), experiments (World Ocean
Circulation Experiment WOCE), programs (International Ocean Discovery
Program), missions (CRYOSAT spacecraft), or decades (The International Decade
of Ocean Exploration IDOE), successful attainment of research goals generally
requires skilful scientific project management. In addition to the usual
challenges of matching scientific ambitions to limited resources, on-going
coordination and specifically project management, planning and implementation
of polar science projects often involve many uncertainties caused by, for
example, unpredictable weather or ocean and sea ice conditions, large-scale
logistical juggling; and often these collaborations are spatially distributed
and take place virtually. Large amounts of funding are needed to procure the
considerable infrastructure and technical equipment required for polar
expeditions; permissions to enter certain regions must be requested; and
potential risks for expedition members as well as technical issues in extreme
environments need to be considered. All these aspects are challenging for
polar science projects, which therefore need a well thought-through program
including a realistic alternative “plan B” and possibly also a “plan C”
and “plan D”.

The four most challenging overarching themes in polar science project
management have been identified: international cooperation,
interdisciplinarity, infrastructure, and community management. In this paper,
we address ongoing challenges and opportunities in polar science project
management based on a survey among 199 project and community managers and an
additional of 85 project team members active in the field of polar sciences.
Case studies and survey results are discussed with the conclusive goal to
provide recommendations on how to fully reach the potential of polar sciences
project and community management.

Polar regions have undergone dramatic environmental changes in the past
decades due to ongoing global climate change. As key areas for understanding
the current state and future changes in Earth's climate system, both the
Arctic and Antarctica have brought the attention of the international
research community and the public. Furthermore, retreating Arctic sea-ice
cover, thawing permafrost, melting ice sheets and glaciers, and associated
environmental changes have made the polar seas and particularly the Arctic
Ocean more accessible, therefore providing new logistical and planning
challenges.

As modern science increasingly advances through collaborative projects,
effective project management plays an increasingly essential role also for
projects in academia. Developed for very different sectors (Kloppenborg and
Opfer, 2002), project management provides the scientific community with a set
of processes usefully applicable to scientific activities in the field,
laboratory, and beyond. Different processes of project management such as
initiating, planning, executing, controlling, and closing (Project Management Institute, 2017) allow
research projects to be carried out in an organised and sensible way,
resulting in increased chances of successful science project delivery.
However, managing a research project can be particularly uncertain due to its
complexity involving `substantial elements of creativity and innovation'
which sometimes makes it difficult to predict the outcome of research in full
(Ernø-Kjølhede, 2000). Therefore, project management in academia as
true also for other domains must be kept flexible and adaptable as new
discoveries along the way may request adjustment for unforeseen scenarios
where specific outcomes, end dates, or budgets can change (Kridelbaugh,
2017). Polar research is particularly challenging as communities are
dispersed across the globe, in addition to the considerable logistical
challenges given the extreme environments and inaccessibility.

Project management in polar sciences includes peculiarities and specifics
applicable to polar environments only. With ongoing environmental changes in
polar regions in the past few decades, the Arctic, Antarctic, and the “Third
Pole” (High Mountain regions) have become a focus for sustained research.
Planning and implementation of research projects in these areas often involve
many additional organizational uncertainties, including large budgets,
complicated logistics, unique risk management, and international and
interdisciplinary collaboration. While these issues need to be considered by
the operating personnel, there is extra, mostly weather-driven, uncertainty
and complexity for operations in polar regions that makes it even more
important for the project management to be efficient, effective and
professional to support their colleagues' science activities in the field,
laboratory, and office.

An important challenge in a cross-disciplinary endeavour such as polar
sciences is the diversity of perspectives of the people involved (Dewulf et
al., 2007). While team science has led to scientific breakthroughs that would
otherwise not have been possible, conducting collaborative research can be
challenging as for example extra time is required for the communication and
coordination of team work (National Research Council, 2015). With diverse and
often dispersed teams, community engagement is therefore crucial for
sustained success in polar science, in particular for initiating and growing
support for large international and interdisciplinary projects. While
complicated, polar sciences is still a human endeavour where dedicated
facilitation of the relationships between collaborators and colleagues leads
to more successful science.

An important task of science project managers is to support creative thinking
within the project team and manage the team's generation of new knowledge
(Ernø-Kjølhede, 2000). Professional project managers deal with a
project from its initialisation to the final report. As in all projects,
polar science projects involve various phases, milestones and work packages
including considerations of resources, community and network management, and
risk assessment. Often project managers also serve as community managers
since they act as “knowledge translators” to facilitate processes that
allow the project participants to communicate their research
(Ernø-Knølhede, 2000).

The current literature available on project management in polar sciences is
sparse. However, the specifics of implementing scientific projects in polar
regions have been largely presented in a summary report devoted to the
International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008 (ICSU and WMO, 2011). This report
discusses the importance of international collaborations and
interdisciplinarity in polar sciences with regard to the success of large
infrastructure projects carried out as international collaborative scientific
efforts. The general overview of polar project management with regard to the
Arctic has extensively been discussed by the International Network for
Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic (INTERACT) (INTERACT,
2014). Here, the authors provide constructive examples of Arctic research
infrastructures management when it comes to planning, policies, permit
issues, environmental impact, staff, marketing, and risks acknowledgements.
Despite the theme of polar expeditions being nearly absent from project
management literature (Kloppenborg and Opfer, 2002), the history of polar
expeditions may offer good learning opportunities as these have been managed
with a high level of uncertainty (Aubry and Lièvre, 2018).

This paper addresses the growing community of professional science project
and community managers in polar sciences. It describes the basic challenges
of polar science project management identified through survey responses in
addition to the authors' own various professional project and community
management experiences. The four overarching, most challenging themes in
polar science project management have been identified: international
cooperation, interdisciplinarity, infrastructure, and community management.
The paper may also be of interest for scientists working in polar regions,
polar research station managers, and other operators active in the field of
polar sciences, as well as for national and international funding agencies
which face the constant challenge of responsible solutions to support costly
international and interdisciplinary polar science projects.

International collaborations in polar research have a long-standing history
(Barr and Lüdecke, 2010; Gerson, 1958). Inspired by Karl Weyprecht who
maintained that polar expeditions should be driven by scientific research,
the first International Polar Year (IPY) took place from 1882 to 1883 when
eleven countries were involved in 15 polar expeditions. The “magnetic,
auroral and meteorological observations at a network of stations in the
Arctic and Antarctic” during the second IPY from 1932 to 1933 were
considered to “materially advance present knowledge and understanding”
(Barr and Lüdecke, 2010; Cannegieter, 1963). Later renamed the
International Geophysical Year (IGY), the third IPY (1957–1958) that also
involved globally relevant research, led to the formation of the Scientific
Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and the signing of the Antarctic
Treaty (Antarctic Treaty, 1959). Applying new tools and technologies to
observe polar systems through more than 200 projects, researchers from sixty
countries and numerous scientific disciplines were brought together for the
fourth IPY from 2008 to 2009 (http://www.ipy.org, last access:
23 April 2019), to make research more efficient
through encouragement of international collaboration supporting increased
connectivity and leveraging infrastructure.

Furthermore, polar organisations such as the European Polar Board (EPB), the
Asian Forum for Polar Sciences (AFoPS), and the Reunión de
Administradores de Programas Antárticos Latinoamericanos (RAPAL) in Latin
America strive to increase coordination across nations and provide a contact
point for the polar communities in certain regions.

In the following section, case studies are provided of how campaigns and
expeditions but also research infrastructures have been managed successfully
by applying processes and tools of project and/or community management. Each
of the cases is briefly described followed by a short outline of the issues
that came up and how management of these was put into place to address them.
For brevity, we have only included a few good practice examples here.
However, there are many more available in polar research, such as e.g.,
N-ICE2015, or the upcoming MOSAiC drift experiment.

2.1 The Year of Polar Prediction – International Effort to Improve Weather and Sea Ice Forecasts in Polar Regions

As a legacy of the last IPY and The Observing System Research and
Predictability Experiment (THORPEX), the World Meteorological Organization
has initiated the ten-year long Polar Prediction Project (PPP) and its key
component, the international Year of Polar Prediction (YOPP), to close
current gaps in polar forecasting capacity, eventually leading to more
reliable weather and sea-ice forecasts in polar regions. During the core
period of YOPP (2017–2019), scientists and operational forecasting centres
from various countries have worked together to take additional observations
which feed into model development to improve polar environmental forecasts
with implications to improved environmental safety in the Arctic and
Antarctic. Similar to previous IPYs, YOPP aims to bring together various
communities; however, by going beyond academia, YOPP also reaches out to
operational forecast centres and stakeholders who are using improved weather
and sea-ice forecast in their daily operations.

Working on a high international, interdisciplinary, and collaborative level,
YOPP is a highly complex project (Werner et al., 2017) which provides an
excellent example of how to make use of the various project management tools
from the very start of the project, including a continuous review and
adjustment over the project's duration. PPP has been scheduled in three
phases to prepare (2013–2017), carry out (2017–2019) and consolidate
(2019–2022) the research activities of the Year of Polar Prediction.
Supported by the International Coordination Office for Polar Prediction, the
PPP Steering Group (SG), representing both the observational and the research
communities, is central for the project management of YOPP. The SG meets
annually to oversee the project's progress, and coordinate and revise the
project's development. In the YOPP Implementation Plan (PPP-SG, 2016), the SG provides
guidance on the objectives, the project plan, the time schedule, linkages and
stakeholder involvement relevant to the various YOPP activities. To date
(March, 2019), the YOPP Implementation Plan is revised by the SG for the
third time to allow for adjustments with respect to the upcoming
Consolidation Phase.

To facilitate coordination and interdisciplinary collaborative work within
YOPP, projects, programmes and initiatives but also organisations and
institutions who contribute to the aims of the Year of Polar Prediction can
request YOPP endorsement by the SG (PPP-SG, 2016). The YOPP
endorsement allows for increased visibility of the various YOPP research
activities but also provides an international framework for the research
carried out within YOPP, with the potential to leverage funding. The
endorsement process also enables the SG and the coordinating office to gain
an overview about the different activities that they need to oversee – i.e.,
the endorsement has become a key element of managing the project.

To ensure roles and responsibilities are shared among the Steering Group but
also involving the wider YOPP community including early career scientists,
dedicated YOPP task teams have been formed to enhance certain activities
during YOPP (e.g., sea-ice prediction, processes, evaluation, communication).

Coordination through communication is key for YOPP to engage with everyone
involved with YOPP, including the wider community and users of polar
forecasts. Communication tools such as the YOPP Explorer and a data portal
have been developed allowing the community to follow the ongoing activities
and work with the data produced during YOPP. By organizing science meetings
(e.g., YOPP Summit in 2015; Polar Prediction Workshop in 2017, YOPP Arctic Science Workshop in 2019), YOPP
facilitates networking and dialogue across boundaries between the YOPP
community. With regular contributions by providers and users of environmental
polar forecast, the platform “Polar Prediction Matters”
(https://blogs.helmholtz.de/polarpredictionmatters/, last access: 6 March 2019) enables the dialogue between
stakeholders.

2.2 The TRANSSIZ Cruise – Example for Interdisciplinary Research in the Arctic

The Arctic in Rapid Transition (ART) network organized the expedition
“Transitions in the Arctic Seasonal Sea Ice Zone” (TRANSSIZ, see also ARK
XXIX/1 or PS92, grant number AWI_PS92_00) as an interdisciplinary field
campaign of international early career scientists (Peeken, 2015). It aimed at
conducting ecological and biogeochemical early-spring process studies north
of 81∘ N, along two shelf-to-basin transects of the European Arctic
margin, linking past to present sea-ice transitions to further improve the
understanding of ecosystem functioning and biogeochemical cycles during the
transition from spring to summer. The cruise aboard the German research
icebreaker RV Polarstern took place for six weeks in May and June 2015. It
involved 51 scientists from eleven countries in collaboration with various
international research groups (Peeken, 2016). By comparing data from the
shelf, across the shelf-break, and into the deep basin, the cruise
participants carried out process studies at sea-ice stations but also in the
marginal ice zone (for details see Peeken, 2016).

Scientists were organized in various research teams such as oceanography,
sea-ice physics, benthos ecology, trace gases, sea-ice biology, geochemistry,
ecosystem, geology and paleoceanography. Good access to information and
effective communication of decision was critical during the TRANSSIZ cruise
where the chief scientist took over the role of a project manager who not
only prepared well in advance of the cruise but also needed to make rapid and
sovereign decisions aboard to not stretch station time unnecessarily.

Heavy sea-ice conditions during the Arctic spring season were one of the
major logistic challenges during TRANSSIZ. While some of the targeted areas
could not be reached due to unexpectedly severe sea-ice conditions, major
research goals of individual research groups were met due to a common
willingness to compromise to successfully conduct interdisciplinary work.
Contamination of samples was another issue. To avoid contamination of the
water column by deep sea sediments when bringing sediment cores aboard, a
chronological order of sampling casts was determined prior to each work
station so that geological sampling was carried out after the sampling of
water and sediment trap work had been finished. For some groups, drifting
during sea-ice stations appeared to be a problem while other groups were
explicitly interested in studying e.g., the organic-matter export under the
ice while drifting during 36 h process studies. Due to strong winds, the
vessel leaning against the sea ice drifted for several nautical miles, and,
in particular at a slope position, the water depth changed during the
duration of the station as much as 400 m. As a result, comparability between
samples taken during the first and last casts of the station were regarded
difficult. To overcome this problem, extra time was added by the chief
scientist to allow relocating the vessel after the process studies were
finished. Additional sampling could then be performed so that research groups
were able to sample a congruent data set from the water column to the
sediments.

2.3 Ny Ålesund International Research Village

Ny Ålesund is the northernmost permanent research station on the
high-Arctic Norwegian Archipelago Svalbard (Fig. 1). Formerly a coal mining
town, its primary activity has now shifted towards research. More than ten
international institutions carry out long-term research in Ny Ålesund and
its vicinity. The Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) coordinates the
international research activities while the infrastructure is managed by the
Kings Bay Company, which provides the basic infrastructural support (e.g.,
flights, harbour, accommodation and board), as well as access to common
research facilities like laboratories and boats. Despite the high-latitude
location, the well-developed infrastructure, relatively easy year-around
access and the proximity to field sites have made Ny Ålesund a popular
destination for numerous international and interdisciplinary research
projects over the past few decades.

Figure 1View on Ny Ålesund from a plane (a) and a small
airplane on airstrip of Ny Ålesund (b). Credits: Alexey Pavlov
(Norwegian Polar Institute).

In a place like Ny Ålesund, where hundreds of research projects are
conducted on a regular basis, the coordination of research and infrastructure
facilities is a challenge. Coordination of research and the use of
infrastructure on Svalbard is overseen by the Svalbard Science Forum (SSF).
SSF is coordinated by the Research Council of Norway (RCN), which runs a SSF
secretariat in Longyearbyen. All research and monitoring projects conducted
on Svalbard have to be registered in the Research in Svalbard (RiS) database,
a portal managed by SSF, which contains information about more than 3500
projects (as of February, 2019). In addition, the Svalbard Integrated Arctic
Earth Observing System (SIOS) has been established as a regional observing
system which aims to strengthen cooperation between researchers in Svalbard
and improve access to data and results. As an international infrastructure
project initially supported by the EU (FP7 programme) and later by RCN and
other partners, SIOS has entered the operational phase in 2018. The SIOS
Knowledge Centre established in Longyearbyen is intended to provide
better-coordinated research services and access to observations, data,
logistics, education, research laboratories and research results, thus
contributing to increased knowledge and promotion of research and research
infrastructure cooperation in Svalbard.

Since its establishment in 1994, the Ny Ålesund Science Managers
Committee (NySMAC) has facilitated cooperation and coordination of research
and monitoring activities in Ny-Ålesund. NySMAC promotes the four
flagship programmes (atmosphere, terrestrial ecosystem, Kongsfjorden
ecosystem, glaciology), which aim to bring together researchers in the
different disciplines to increase collaboration through e.g., field campaigns
or publications with the goal of increasing research quality. NySMAC includes
representatives from 18 international member institutes and three observer
institutions. The NySMAC secretariat is located at NPI in Tromsø.

Funding availability, or the lack thereof, is among the major challenges when
it comes to infrastructure access and logistics in both Arctic and
Antarctica. With an already well-developed infrastructure on Svalbard, this
challenge is at least partly tackled successfully via regular financial
support for infrastructure access provided by the RCN via the SSF's Arctic
Field Grants and Svalbard Strategic Grants. Both SIOS and the EU-funded
project “International Network for Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the
Arctic” (INTERACT) also regularly provide funding for transnational access to
stations on Svalbard.

2.4 National Infrastructures

Khibiny station

Khibiny research and educational station located on the Kola Peninsula,
Murmansk region, Russia, is managed by the Lomonosov Moscow State University
(LMSU). It was established in 1948 and operates year-round with four research
scientists as station staff hosting visiting research groups and student
training practices – up to eighty people at a time. The station's
infrastructure includes a student dormitory with lecture room, laboratory,
and dining room, and a main administrative building with several apartments
for visiting researchers.

Institutional access to the station is limited by the agreements with the
owner LMSU, which is advantageous in most cases for international
cooperation. Official institutional support to access the station may,
however, be limited due to the growing number of private logistics operators
who also provide support for research groups coming to the region. Similar to
Ny Ålesund, Khibiny station is also part of the International Network for
Terrestrial Research and Monitoring in the Arctic (INTERACT) which provides
access to the station's research facilities.

As for nearly all fieldwork stations hosting international research groups,
different requirements of research and sampling procedures demand for
individual flexibility of Khibiny station's personnel and ad-lib approach
when working in the Russian Arctic. Challenges can occur because of language
barriers, cultural differences, and different levels of professional
flexibility and responses to critical emergencies. Furthermore, challenges at
the institutional level such as differences in financial practices and
mechanisms, lack of personnel (especially field assistants and technicians),
or a high level of bureaucracy within state institutions and federal services
may exist. The latter can dramatically affect the ability to conduct in-situ
research and field expeditions when visa processing procedures, permission
processing on import and/or export of research equipment and samples are
involved.

Since Khibiny research station is located in mountainous terrain, it bears an
additional risk typical for cold environments. The station has therefore
implemented particular risk management practices and emergency training
lectures that the station manager provides to visitors before going in the
field.

Troll Station

Troll Station is a year-round research station in Dronning Maud Land,
Antarctica operated by the Norwegian Polar Institute (NPI) (Fig. 2). Good
bandwidth to enable remotely monitored and controlled projects and easy
access for on-site work with adaptive transport solutions have been
identified by NPI as key factors to enable research at Troll station but also
to save time and costs, especially when only several days or weeks are needed
to conduct actual field work.

Therefore, the Troll Airfield runway was constructed in 2005 on the blue ice
close to the station (Fig. 2). The airfield has been successfully operated
during the Antarctic summer seasons (November to March) and meets the
requirements even of modern commercial long-range aircraft such as Airbus 319 or Boeing 737 and 757. An airfield with
the capability of adapting to a wide range of aircraft allows for customized
transport solutions which is a great advantage to scientists and technical
personnel. Flight time from Cape Town, South Africa to Troll Station is only
about six hours, and a couple of flights are carried out each season between
Norway and Troll Station, with the fastest flight time so far being 24 h.
Since Troll airfield is one of the few intercontinental airfields in
Antarctica, it has become an important base for international airborne
research.

High bandwidth was another area that NPI identified as vital in enabling
tomorrow's research. At most stations in Antarctica, bandwidth is still
limited and sometimes only accessible for part of the day. Due to a
collaboration with the Norwegian company Kongsberg Satellite Services,
perpetual data transfer at Troll station can now occur in the scale of
gigabyte. While there is always a station research engineer present in case
operations need human intervention, the new data transfer facilities have
enabled scientists to also remotely connect and control their instruments.

The daily life at a polar research station is similar in the Arctic or the
Antarctic. A normal day starts with a meeting where the different needs are
coordinated. The station manager needs to make sure the station is fully
functional with power, water, communications and other equipment needed by
scientists, technicians or engineers who are more in the role of customers or
visitors. Nevertheless, a visiting scientist can also have the role of a
project manager who interacts with the stations manager in order get station
support for their project. For smaller projects, the scientist can thus also
act as a project manager. For larger and more complex projects that require
much support, project management to plan field work at a research station
quickly becomes a full-time task. Shipping of equipment, pre-deployment
training, and making sure that equipment, personnel support, power and
communications requirements can be met are key in the planning process
because once being at the station or in the field, there is little time to
compensate poor preparations.

In addition to selected case studies chosen as examples of project and
community management efforts (Sect. 2), a community survey was carried out
to better understand current challenges and opportunities of polar science
project and community management. Results of the survey were evaluated to
present them in this paper.

A structured questionnaire was developed to learn about the expertise and
knowledge required by project and community management professionals as well
as the most common challenges they face when implementing their projects. The
survey entitled “Project Management and Community Management in Polar Sciences: Challenges and Opportunities” contained 29 questions
divided into eight chapters: General information (with basic statistical
overview of respondents, examination of levels of authority in project
management) and different challenges in project and community management
(importance of diverse components). The survey contained open-ended and
closed-ended multiple choice questions where respondents were given a range
of responses to choose from (Table 1). The survey was launched online through
Google forms service and remained open for 31 days; it was disseminated
through different network e-mailing listservs (e.g., Cryolist, ArcticInfo,
IASC, Polar Prediction Project) and via direct individual emails.

Survey questions, within the different proposed themes – international
cooperation, interdisciplinarity, infrastructure/logistics, community
management, risk management, and time management – were structured around
the same survey logic for each theme to maintain comparability between the
results of different themes. An ethical protocol was followed, with the
survey supported by privacy and impact statements proclaiming no negative
outcomes for the respondents. Individual responses were collected via Google
Drive. These will remain confidential, while the results presented in this
paper are shared and analysed anonymously in a generalized manner.

Survey research is defined as “the collection of information from a sample
of individuals through their responses to questions” (Check and Schutt,
2012). Community and project managers in polar regions were the primary
target group of survey respondents. However, the survey was open to anyone
playing an active role in polar science projects. The total number of
responses provided by the community during the campaign was n=284. More
than half of the respondents (51.8 %) defined themselves in the role of
professional project managers, while 2.5 % defined themselves as
professional community managers, and 15.8 % as both. A large pool of
remaining responses (29.9 %) referred to different roles in science
projects (from principal investigator to project data manager and operations
coordinator) with all of them being relevant to project management at
different levels (Fig. 3).

Figure 3Distribution of roles in project management (PM) and community
management (CM) within the group of respondents.

Additional questions in the first part of the survey (“General
information”) were developed to obtain a statistical overview of the group
of respondents by multiple-choice options. The results showed that among the
284 respondents, ca 63 % were working in project or community management
in the Arctic or in Antarctica, respectively, including those working in both
regions. Management in High Mountain terrains was the focus of 34 (12 %)
respondents. A question regarding the project specialization (What type of projects are you most involved with?) allowed participants to choose
between expeditions, research, network coordination, logistics, and data
management (Fig. 4a). As a result, management of research projects (249
respondents, 87.7 %) was the most common category, while other had less
representation among the survey group (Fig. 4a). Such results were linked
with the responses to a question about the professional affiliation (What
type of organisation do you work in?); 225 (79.2 %) respondents were
connected to research institutions or universities (Fig. 4b).

The question (Where are you based?) revealed that 56.3 % of
respondents were from Europe, 23.9 % were from North America, 8.1 %
of the respondents were from Asia, 6.3 % were either based in South
America or Australia/New Zealand, and 0.4 % (one person) were from
Africa.

Question Q9 in the survey addressed the general challenges in polar sciences
project management: What is important when planning a project in polar sciences? Survey respondents considered the following aspects
important: international cooperation, the interdisciplinary nature of polar
sciences, infrastructure/logistics (including risk management) (Fig. 5).
Differences occurred in the rating of survey respondents who considered
themselves as professional project and community managers (PM/CM) versus
those in other roles within polar science projects (OR). While OR rated all
other points (e.g., international cooperation, infrastructure access,
logistics, see Fig. 5) less often as “very important” than PM/CM, the interdisciplinary nature of polar sciences was rated higher by OR (42 %)
than by PM/CM (38 %).

Figure 5Important in polar science projects: Survey respondents (%)
rating as “5 – very important” when asked the question Q9: Please rate
(from 1 to 5) the importance of the following points for you when planning a
project in polar sciences?.

4.1 International Collaboration

In Q10 of the survey, participants were asked to rate the following five
challenges with respect to the topic “international cooperation”: cultural
differences, communication barriers, funding, differing national
strategies/political context. The scale provided was 1 to 5, with 5 being
“Very challenging”. A majority of the participants (48 %) selected
“Funding” as the most challenging aspect of international collaborations,
followed by “Differing national strategies and political contexts”
(23 %, Fig. 6). These results corresponded with the responses to the
open-ended question posed “What else (in addition to above question) is most challenging for you in international cooperation?” Funding, and
specifically the lack of a coordinated international funding mechanism was
consistently brought up. Other aspects within international coordination
e.g., a mismatch in timetables for funding applications, differences in local
and national regulations, differences in reporting requirements, fluctuating
currency values, and coordinating between time zones were mentioned by
respondents. Another issue noted in the open-ended question were the
different national regulations and processes to acquire permits to carry out
research in the polar regions.

4.2 Interdisciplinarity

In question Q11, survey participants were asked to rate the following
challenges with regard to the interdisciplinary nature of polar sciences:
funding, scientific agenda, communication, planning, infrastructure and
logistics, team management, and discipline-specific culture. Most survey
participants (43 %) rated “Funding” with “5 – Very challenging”;
“Infrastructure and Logistics” and “Planning” followed with 23 % and
18 %, respectively (Fig. 7). Project and community managers more often
evaluated “funding” issues as “very challenging” (45 %) compared to
those respondents with other roles in projects (38 %). Results concurred
with additional comments some of the survey participants provided in Q11a
(“What else (in addition to above question) is most challenging for you in interdisciplinary projects?”), where issues related to financial
support for interdisciplinary polar science projects were mentioned. In
addition, many of the respondents in the open question emphasized
“communication” with regard to discipline-specific language and terminology,
as well as challenging issues related to personal relationships. The
challenge of a “scientific agenda” was rated higher by those with other
roles in projects (17 %) compared to survey respondents considering
themselves as project and community managers (12 %) (Fig. 7).

4.3 Infrastructure

Infrastructure access and logistics were considered by most survey
respondents (59 % and 65 % respectively) very important when planning
a project in polar sciences (Fig. 5). With the interdisciplinary nature of
polar sciences, the category on “Infrastructure and logistics” was the
second most important challenge (23 % of respondents ranked it as very
challenging) after “Funding” (43 %) (Fig. 7). Under the question (Q16)
about risk management in polar projects, categories “Operations” and
“Technical” were also ranked the most challenging (Fig. 8), which reflects
the peculiarities of operations in what are often unpredictable environmental
conditions.

4.4 Community Engagement

Community engagement is an important aspect of project management and the
principal task of community managers. Out of the 284 survey respondents,
seven identified themselves solely as community managers, one identified as a
community manager and scientist, and 45 respondents considered themselves as
both community and project managers (Fig. 3). Funding was identified as the
largest challenge in community management (40 %, Fig. 10). Amongst other
aspects identified as “very challenging” in community engagement,
stakeholder engagement was selected by 20 % of respondents. As building
and extending a scientific community requires funding and other resources,
community and particularly stakeholder engagement is at least partly also a
funding issue. While stakeholder engagement might be central to community
managers, it is just one of many tasks of project managers. Comments across
community manager respondents to the open-ended question clearly indicated
that no matter the challenges, community engagement is seen to be critical in
service of advancing scientific aims.

Figure 10Challenges associated with Community Engagement. Survey respondents
(%) rating as “5 – very challenging” when asked the questions Q14:
Community: Please rate (from 1 to 5) the following challenges.

In the following, we address four overarching themes in polar science project
management – international collaboration, interdisciplinarity,
infrastructure and logistics, and community engagement – using the survey
results (Sect. 4) as well as case studies (Sect. 2) to identify the most
important challenges within these themes and provide recommendations for each
of them.

5.1 International Collaboration

Polar research is considered inherently collaborative due to logistical
challenges involved in working in polar regions. Complexities of research
questions and the high costs involved for equipment, analytical tools, and
labour further increase the need for international collaboration in both
polar regions (see also Sect. 5.3). The governing treaty for the continent of
Antarctica and the International Polar Years are great examples of how
international collaboration for scientific achievement and benefit to
humankind were put ahead of the gains of individual nations (Antarctic
Treaty, 1959; Barr and Lüdecke, 2010). Such large international
collaborative efforts also provide a great opportunity for nations relatively
new to polar research to substantially bolster their polar scientific
infrastructure. These efforts are also a rationale for ambitious projects
that might be difficult to justify on their own (Mervis, 2007).

International collaborations have many benefits for individual researchers,
their institutions, and also at the national level. Working within
international teams such as the Year of Polar Prediction (Sect. 2.1),
researchers gain new networks and skills, while large multi-national projects
(e.g., the TRANSSIZ cruise, Sect. 2.2) share the cost of science and logistic
capabilities with the knowledge produced benefitting all countries involved
(Nath et al., 2016). However, collaborative projects extending across
national boundaries also introduce their own set of project management
challenges. These challenges begin when individuals from different countries
and organizations, with different funding mechanisms, and different value
systems share authority, responsibility, and decision-making (Shore and
Cross, 2005). A project manager used to work within an international setting
will have the required cultural sensibility to convey between diverse team
members to positively influence team effectiveness.

Survey respondents clearly specified the issues they face while engaging in
international collaborations in polar research, some of which are very
similar to those faced in other disciplines. Funding stood out as the major
hurdle due to (a) lack of a coordinated funding mechanism; (b) differences in
academic and financial calendars, funding applications, and review processes;
(c) differing (and oftentimes multiple) reporting requirements for funding;
(d) fluctuations in currency exchange rates; and (e) lack of sustained
funding sources for long-term collaborative projects. The hurdles mentioned
here can only partly be relieved. The main recommendation from this paper is
to take them into consideration in the planning process to support truly
coordinated funding processes with international partners.

Differences in the national strategies provides yet another barrier,
especially in the context of a changing political environment. These include
(a) finding a balance between international cooperation and domestic
constraints; (b) differing national regulations for field sites;
(c) variations in national scientific priorities thus affecting science
funding; and (d) differences in safety standards, regulations and
requirements. A set of guidelines resolving major issues (as above), while
specifying international standards would further enhance international
collaborations in polar research.

Other issues obstructing further international collaborations in polar
research were (a) cultural and language differences; (b) differences in
time-zones hampering preparative meetings; (c) differences in permits
required and how to obtain them, and other bureaucratic barriers;
(d) differences in medical requirements for fieldwork,; and (e) differences
in methodologies used. These issues are heightened if the international
collaborations are also interdisciplinary, adding yet another layer of
complexity.

Some of these barriers have started to be recognised at both poles, and
efforts are underway to identify and resolve these issues. In the Arctic,
with the signing and ratifying of the Agreement on Enhancing International
Arctic Scientific Cooperation (Arctic Council, 2017), topics for furthering
scientific cooperation include intellectual property, entry and exit of
persons, equipment and material, access to research areas, infrastructure and
facilities, and data. Finland, under the auspices of the Arctic Council, was
hosting the inaugural meeting in 2018 for the implementation of the Agreement
on Enhancing International Arctic Scientific Cooperation which aims to get
input from stakeholders on both barriers and opportunities related to this
agreement.

In the Antarctic, some of these issues have long been recognised with the
Antarctic Treaty (Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, 2019), with
the parties to the treaty implementing the Environmental Protocol into
domestic legislation in order to establish a clear permitting regime for
activities to be carried out by the treaty parties. These permits can be
obtained in advance by researchers from the relevant National Competent
Authority (Antarctic Treaty Secretariat, 2019). Other organisations
like the Committee of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) and
the European Polar Board (EPB) have recently started internal activities
recognising these barriers to research and looking at ways to overcome them
(Miguel Ojeda, personal communication, 2018).

5.2 Interdisciplinarity

Since “real-world problems such as climate change do not come in
disciplinary-shaped boxes”, new approaches require knowledge and
understanding across disciplines (Jeffrey, 2003). Integrated studies of
coupled human and natural systems allow for new and complex patterns that
otherwise would not be identified (Liu et al., 2007). The same is true for
integrated work across various different natural science disciplines, in this
paper henceforth referred to as interdisciplinary work. While collaboration
across science disciplines is challenging, it becomes increasingly important
also in various fields of polar sciences; in particular, as it demands
scientists to put their specific results into larger perspectives to trigger
communication among different groups (Werner et al., 2016). In recent years,
interdisciplinary programs may have eventually even become disciplines
themselves (e.g., biogeochemistry).

Polar science projects can be viewed as temporary organizations (Lundin and
Söderholm, 1995) that largely rely on interdisciplinary team work (see
Sect. 2.2). Individuals of this team usually start as a group “with very
diverse backgrounds, experiences and expectations regarding the project
objectives” but need to become a coherent team as the project progresses
(Sydow and Braun, 2018).

The potential for conflicts is high in interdisciplinary project teams. In
general, research projects involve various paradoxes, such as the large
degree of autonomy versus a need for strict control, or a knowledge asymmetry
between the individual researchers who usually have a better knowledge about
the potential of their research contributions than their project managers
(Ernø-Kjølhede, 2000). In international and interdisciplinary projects
such as in polar sciences, work across organizational, disciplinary and
national borders adds to the conflict potential (Ernø-Kjølhede, 2000)
so that designing a research co-operation with minimised conflict potential
(Ernø-Kjølhede, 2000) is key for managing interdisciplinary projects in
polar sciences.

Each science discipline involves its own agenda and expertise. Successful
interdisciplinary projects require the various team members to appreciate
perspectives, terminology, and methods different from their traditional
science environments. The National Research Council (2015) mentions the
deep-knowledge integration gained through interdisciplinary research as one
of the challenges for team science. Here, communication plays a key role.
Often, a science community is constrained to its own discipline-specific
network. However, effective team management with communication among all team
members representing the different disciplines involved in the project is
necessary to develop a common language and collective goals, and to plan
truly interdisciplinary research activities. A project manager who is able to
look at the big picture and continuously fosters dialogue between team
members to enable details in planning and implementation can help to overcome
potential differences and misconceptions across different science
disciplines. This, in particular, is central with regards to the mutual use
of the available infrastructure, hereby minimizing logistic efforts.

Management of interdisciplinary science efforts already faces challenges in
the initialization of a project. To be successful in funding, all science
disciplines involved in a project, including cross-discipline field
campaigns, need to be thoroughly explained in a project proposal. While
efforts to support interdisciplinary projects have grown in recent years
(e.g., EU Horizon 2020 calls), financial support for interdisciplinary
projects is still considered challenging as peer reviewers invited to
evaluate a proposal for an interdisciplinary science project may still be
biased by their own traditional science discipline. However, by demanding a
specification about how to integrate disciplinary perspectives and methods
throughout the life of a research project and by providing guidance for the
reviewers' evaluation of collaborative interdisciplinary team plans, funding
agencies are in a position to foster an interdisciplinary culture within the
scientific community (National Research Council, 2015).

Successful project management to implement interdisciplinary science projects
is needed to ensure the coordination of different groups and activities in
the field, as well as their work in the lab and at home institutions,
involving analysis and interpretation of data. For the evaluation and
conclusion of an interdisciplinary project, scientific results will need to
be evaluated by all team members for scientific delivery such as in science
papers and for a final report to be submitted timely to the funding agency.

5.3 Infrastructure

The basic physical and organizational structures and facilities (e.g.
buildings, roads, power supplies) needed for scientific research projects in
polar regions and high altitude mountain regions often are more complex than
the infrastructure serving researchers in other regions. Polar infrastructure
has to withstand weather extremes such as prolonged sub-zero temperatures and
large seasonal temperature fluctuations, snow and ice, as well as strong wind
conditions. Often, adaptations, special design and individual solutions are
needed for self-sustained infrastructure in polar regions since access,
construction and maintenance of polar research sites are often limited to
short summer seasons.

A more established infrastructure exists in the Arctic where people including
Indigenous peoples have been present for generations. In contrast, humans
have only been present in the Antarctic for slightly more than one hundred
years, usually staying only for a limited period of time. Surviving in
Antarctica without resupplies would thus be difficult if not impossible.
Hence, differences exist in carrying out research projects in the Arctic and
in Antarctica. In the Arctic, access is usually easier and regulations depend
on national laws. In terms of environmental regulations, the Antarctic Treaty
agreements are in many cases stricter than in the Arctic. For example,
nuclear power stations are operated in the Arctic, while they are forbidden
in Antarctica.

Arctic research has traditionally been limited by access and presence in the
region. Only a handful of countries own land in the Arctic or have access to
ships with icebreaking capability. One exception is Ny-Ålesund on
Svalbard (Sect. 2.3), which is open for scientific research under the
Svalbard Treaty (1920). Access to Ny Ålesund is possible by commercial
aircraft with several flights per week year-round and occasional boat
connection. In contrast, access to Antarctic research stations is more
complicated, with very limited infrastructure for transport. Most stations
are completely isolated for several months of the year when many of the
operations are reduced.

A good understanding of the limits and possibilities of the infrastructure
can help to deal with comprehensive logistics requirements to carry out
research projects in polar regions. However, not only buildings and equipment
are needed but successful and safe operations rely even more on trained and
experienced support staff under the challenging Arctic and Antarctic
conditions. Running a station and its maintenance in polar conditions often
requires special training where involving expertise on the infrastructure
early in the planning phase of projects and campaigns has proven important.
In addition, station managers need to make decisions quickly while they have
to overlook the activities of the station team and visitors.

With the rapidly changing climate, future challenges and requirements of
polar research projects may pose new demands on infrastructure, logistical
and technical support. Novel opportunities to advance polar research arise
with new technologies allowing for new possibilities to access remote
locations, with new materials and more energy efficient equipment,
alternative ways to provide power, and remotely controlled equipment or even
equipment that controls itself.

When it comes to energy supply and efficiency, the recent boom in renewable
solar and wind technologies with much less environmental impact may be used
for power supply at remote locations, thus eliminating traditionally
complicated and costly logistics of fuel transportation to remote locations.
Furthermore, equipment and facilities are becoming increasingly power
efficient. The increase in polar orbiting satellites improves communication
and increases the number of satellite images available so that weather and
ice conditions can be better monitored in polar regions. The rapid
technological development for space and underwater explorations has brought
new technologies to remotely control field equipment and infrastructure.
Combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI), some field equipment is nowadays
not even depending on constant bandwidth connection anymore. Already today,
drones are doing what previously required helicopters or aircraft. Thus,
polar research will likely become more automated in the future. The very
rapid development in the domain of remotely controlled equipment and
infrastructure brings a lot of opportunities and possibilities but it also
makes it important for project managers to have a technical background and to
stay updated on new technologies including their limitations. Therefore,
project management in the field will become even more important as will the
need for interaction between project managers to exchange experiences and
share information.

Survey results (Sect. 4) also indicate funding as the biggest challenge when
it comes to infrastructure. To reduce these costs, a collaborative use of
available facilities and coordination of transportation alternatives such as
in Ny Ålesund (Sect. 2.3) is required. A major benefit for countries and
operators of Antarctic stations is the Antarctic Treaty that strongly
encourages international collaboration (see above Sects. 2 and 5.1).
Well-established structures are already in place on an operational level to
exchange ideas, visit other stations and collaborate on infrastructure. For
example, the Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP) is
responsible for overall collaboration and coordination in Antarctica. The
Dronning Maud Land Air Network (DROMLAN) is focused on regional collaboration
in Dronning Maud Land and meets twice a year to discuss operational matters
and challenges. Similarly well-established and strong collaborations, on an
operational level, are still lacking in the Arctic, likely because operating
in the Arctic is often cheaper due to easier access and already available
infrastructure. As the Arctic is strategically more important, politics and
national interests might not encourage interaction in the same way as the
Antarctic Treaty does.

To further reduce costs of infrastructure and logistics, mechanisms such the
ones developed in Ny Ålesund (Sect. 2.3) could widely be adapted with
coordination of transportation and access to field sites, as well as funding
mechanisms to support access to infrastructure.

5.4 Community Engagement

A team consists of two or more individuals with different roles and
responsibilities who interact socially and interdependently within an
organization to perform tasks and accomplish common goals (National Research
Council, 2015). Projects are temporary communities or organizations, or even
miniature societies (Lundin and Söderholm, 1995; Perryman, 2013), with
individuals working together in a team towards this common goal.
Project-based communities need to be built and have to be sustained in order
for the projects to be eventually proposed and initiated. Putting
community-building first allows for improved collaboration and project
co-design. Almost any collaborative project in polar sciences is
interorganizational in character (Sydow and Braun, 2018), with multiple
institutes and organizations usually being involved. Crossing organizational
boundaries in polar-science activities therefore need to be taken into
account for engagement with a project-based community (Sydow and Braun,
2018).

Rigorous discussion around community engagement is a nascent field (Kuo,
2018), especially in polar science, as is evidenced by the fact that only
3 % of survey respondents self-define themselves as community managers,
and 16 % as community managers and project managers (Fig. 3).

According to the AAAS Community Engagement Fellows Program (AAAS CEFP, 2018),
community engagement involves the participation of members of a community in
the community's activities where a community manager is someone who
facilitates the activities of the community and the interactions between
community members (AAAS CEFP, 2018). Community managers are responsible for
fostering community among colleagues working on the same topic (Kuo, 2018),
or helping people find shared topics to work on. This is an intentionally
broad definition, and may include diverse activities such as supporting
multi-institutional research collaboration (Sect. 2); connecting individuals
as part of the member engagement and marketing activities of a professional
scientific society or association; bringing together like-minded
professionals as part of a science-focused community of interest or practice;
bridging between an organization and others as part of a local, national, or
international project involving scientists, policy makers, think tanks and
others; or activities that may be described as “team science” (AAAS, 2018).

According to the “Hub for the Community Industry” (CMX), community managers
require excellent organizational skills, creativity, curiosity, an analytical
mind, passion and loyalty, patience, empathy, business savvy, and vision
(Bridge, 2017). In an AAAS survey of scientific community managers,
engagement and content skills were identified as most important, followed by
strategic and technical skills, and business skills (Woodley et al., 2018).
This changes over the course of a community manager's career; despite
engagement being seen as a core competency, senior scientific community
managers do more strategy and content work while newer community managers are
more involved in direct engagement (Trellis, 2016a).

Scientific community manager's skills are often self-taught and with a
science degree, or even a PhD, because they identify with the scientific
community that they support (Trellis, 2016b). This highlights the fact that
community managers must develop the skills identified above, but this may be
detrimental to short-term projects not long enough to allow for skill and
knowledge building.

Project management is, for the most part, an activity undertaken with a
community of others. By contrast, a community manager may or may not feel or
be seen as part of this community. This is especially the case where managers
operate in an environment where they “have far less authority than
responsibility” (Project Management Institute, 2014). Community mangers often face large
responsibilities but with an expectation of being invisible at the same time,
endeavoring to shepherd or lead communities from behind. In these situations,
it is important for a community manager to identify their connections within
their professional community to be able to thrive in their role.

Many scientific communities do not have a community manager. Project managers
may fill some community management tasks, but in such cases
community-building is a by-product rather than the explicit goal. In this
context, most scientific communities are not familiar with the role of
community manager or do not prioritize this while some communities do not
have a community manager due to lack of funding (Trellis, 2016c). When
funding is available for a community manager, the source of the funding
depends on the type of organization; academic institutions may be able to
sustain long-term community managers, while research projects are more
limited to shorter term funding (Trellis, 2016d).

This paper's survey also identified funding as the largest challenge for
polar science community managers (Fig. 10). Stakeholder engagement, strategic
planning, and external communication are also challenges for those who
answered the survey. According to a broader survey of scientific community
managers done by AAAS (86 % of whom were funded, therefore obviating
funding as a challenge), prioritization of tasks was seen as the largest
challenge (Trellis, 2016e). Interestingly, this could be seen as a project
management task more than a community challenge; the fact that many
identified their role as part-time could contribute to prioritization as a
challenge. In the AAAS survey, development of engagement, strategic, and
content skills, as well as technical and business skills, were also all seen
as challenges as well (Trellis, 2016e).

Even more than the rest of the global science endeavour, polar sciences are
highly interdisciplinary and international. With diverse and often diffuse
teams, community management is crucial for sustained success in polar
science, in particular for initiating and growing large international and
interdisciplinary projects. Community efforts provided in part by, for
example, the International Arctic Science Committee, were able to amplify the
enthusiasm of a few researchers into the one hundred million Euro MOSAiC
expedition by facilitating planning and implementation workshops. Community
efforts were central to the success of the 2007–2008 International Polar
Year (ICSU-WMO, 2011). Polar research is complicated but remains a human
endeavour, and therefore dedicated facilitation of the relationships between
collaborators leads to more successful science by encouraging more
cross-disciplinary approaches and solutions.

Polar science balances an interesting dichotomy of being highly
tele-connected while at home, but often very disconnected when conducting
remote fieldwork. The AAAS survey identified that community managers promote
more activities that call for online participation (Trellis, 2016f), which
can both be better and less suited to polar communities, depending on the
fieldwork calendar. The bimodal behaviour of researchers can be a unique
challenge faced by polar community managers because organizing things while
people are in the field makes tasks a lot more challenging.

In contrast, fieldwork (which may or may not be facilitated by a community
manager or project manager) can build strong bonds which are crucial to
cohesive polar science communities. In the field, “the commitment of
participants to a project especially under extreme conditions, such as a
polar expedition, has a vital bearing on its end result. In a project, an
individual's performance depends more on actual commitment than on intrinsic
skills and suitability for the functions the project requires”
(Récopé et al., 2010). Whether in the field or not, a shared mental
model of the work is also critical to overall success. Aligning a group's
tasks, expectations, and goals is a key role where community management can
help build both shared vision and shared value. In both, the field and in
mental modelling, identifying the importance of community has been key to
polar science; thus, community managers are also a key to successful polar
science.

Community management is a field which is only beginning to be
professionalized. In polar science, community managers have an important role
to play. With challenges including dedicated roles or funding, as well as
appropriate training, there is a lot of room for growth in polar science
community management and therefore room for continued improvement of
facilitation of polar science itself. It is therefore important to identify
and recognize the presence and value of scientific community management tasks
and roles being filled in polar sciences. Once they are enumerated and
professionalized, it is possible to both fund and evaluate the effectiveness
of scientific community managers. Skills development is crucial for
successful community managers. Whether polar scientists transitioning into a
community management role or community managers learning about polar science
and polar science project management, it will be increasingly important to
establish training and networking opportunities for this community which
serves the polar science community.

There is only a limited amount of literature available so that this paper
presents a first comprehensive overview of the challenges related to managing
polar research projects. Survey results do not necessarily represent the
opinion of the full global community of community and project managers active
in polar research. This survey, however, has been a first-ever attempt to
gauge information from the community of project and community managers in
polar science; and the number of 284 participants demonstrates the positive
response and interest in the topic. Future analysis of various free-text
responses to open-ended questions (for an example see Table 1) will help to
obtain a deeper understanding of the various challenges faced by project and
community managers in polar sciences as not all of them could be considered
in this paper.

Successful polar research requires skilful scientific project management as
planning and implementation of polar science projects often involve many
uncertainties. Here, we have addressed the main challenges of polar science
project management identified through survey responses, in addition to the
authors' various professional project and community management experiences.
Four overarching, most challenging themes in polar science project management
have been identified: international cooperation, interdisciplinarity,
infrastructure, and community management.

Funding was identified by survey respondents as a common challenge for all
themes. Accessibility to funding is considered challenging for international
cooperation as research funds are still mostly provided by national
institutions or governments. While efforts to support interdisciplinary
projects are growing, financial support for projects involving various
science disciplines is still seen as challenging as reviewers of an
interdisciplinary science project may still be biased by their own
traditional discipline-specific background. Funding availability, or the lack
thereof, is also considered by project managers as the major challenges when
it comes infrastructure access and logistics in both Arctic and Antarctica,
mainly due to their high costs. A better coordinated use of existing
infrastructure and logistics is one of the key solutions. Furthermore, the
lack of funding is an issue for community managers as many scientific
communities are not familiar with the role of a community manager and do not
prioritize this for their scientific communities.

To overcome the challenges faced by polar project and community managers, it
is important to identify and recognize the value of scientific project and
community management tasks and roles being filled. Often, project and
community management in academia is undervalued and viewed by scientists as
merely administrative tasks that can be carried out by principal scientists
in addition to their role in research. A cultural change is therefore
necessary to fully acknowledge the roles and work of project and community
managers and their contribution to polar research, and potentially to create
financial mechanisms on both national and international levels to support
professional managers in light of their increasing role in polar sciences.

Skills development is crucial for both project and community managers. Both
roles cannot simply rely on an individual's organisational and interpersonal
skills, but require structured training. This includes technical training for
e.g., finance, programming, instrumentation, software, project management
systems, etc. but also strategic and interpersonal skills such as conflict
management, team management, leadership and policy.

As many project managers do not feel that their authority being sufficiently
recognised within the project, it would be advantageous for them to become
more involved in the decision-making process for all strategic decisions
related to the project; for example, by including them in the project
executive boards or advisory committees also acknowledging the scientific
expertise that project managers in academia often have.

To successfully guide a polar research endeavour, both project managers and
community managers should be involved in polar research activities from the
very beginning. Often, they are hired only for the implementation phase after
the project has already been initiated and funded. It is therefore important
for polar research institutions to establish long-term project management
offices where project managers can support research activities from the
conception of the project until its closure with a prominent role in all
phases.

Finally, as a general recommendation, given the sparseness of literature on
polar science project and community management, more in depth analysis is
needed for the topics addressed in this paper to grow the current body of
literature and provide guidelines that project and community management in
polar research can refer to.

Partial data from the survey is provided here in the Supplement for the manuscript. Open-ended questions, comments and
contact information of respondents have been removed to ensure compliance with the
privacy and impact statements declared in the introduction of the survey.

All co-authors significantly contributed to the design of the survey and to
discussions resulting in the paper. KW and LS initiated discussion around the
topic and invited co-authors to join this effort. YZ led the design of the
survey and analyzed results of the survey. LS carried out a major literature
review. YZ, AP, SL, AP, RB, and MB wrote certain sections of the paper. As
lead author, KW coordinated the contributions, wrote and edited main parts of
the paper and produced Figs. 3 to 10 (survey results). AP and SL provided
Figs. 1 and 2, respectively.

This article is part of the special issue “Project management
in geosciences: systems and practices for high-impact research”. It is a result of the
session “Project Management in the Arctic Science – the Unknown Driver of
Changes” during the Arctic Science Summit Week 2017, Prague, Czech Republic,
31 March–7 April 2017.

We are grateful for thorough comments and suggestions by three anonymous
reviewers. David Carlson provided guidance and recommendations for the idea
of the paper. We thank Harald Steen and Stephen Hudson (both Norwegian Polar
Institute) for helpful comments regarding the management of infrastructure on
Svalbard. Alexey K. Pavlov was supported by the Polish-Norwegian Research
Programme operated by the National Centre for Research and Development under
the Norwegian Financial Mechanism 2009–2014 in the frame of Project Contract
Pol-Nor/197511/40/2013, CDOM-HEAT. Luisa Cristini received funding through
the EU Horizon 2020 (APPLICATE 727862).

The
article processing charges for this open-access publication
were covered by a Research Centre of the Helmholtz
Association.

Authors describe basic challenges of project and community management in polar sciences, identified through survey responses in addition to the authors’ own variou professional experiences. Four overarching themes were identified: international cooperation, interdisciplinarity, infrastructure, and community management. Case studies and survey results are discussed with the conclusive goal to provide recommendations on how reach the full potential in polar science project and community management

Authors describe basic challenges of project and community management in polar sciences,...